Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Hussar]

One of my issues with how these arguments play out, is the bar being set, is only people with certain kinds of advanced degrees, or people who have spent an inordinate amount of time boning up on complex specialties, can handle this kind of material creatively without transgressing.

You mean, doing things like looking up words in a dictionary?

 

[Hussar]

In one of the other 'threads that shall not be named', I asked people how they thought the changes going on with WotC would affect other aspects of the game. I'd mentioned religion and the words like druid and shaman and how religion is portrayed and the potential of offense in that regard.

I was told to stop making exaggerated comments and focusing on 'what ifs'.

And here we are. Funny, huh?

You are also ignoring the fact that you were told that if something else came up with specific issues, then we could deal with that too. See, you'll note that beholders and dragons and demons are still not being talked about, because there are no specific issues that can be pointed to, along with supporting evidence as to why they are a problem.

That's why you were told to stop making exaggerated comments. Not that your comments were impossible, but, because you were just shooting in the dark. Throw out enough stuff and sure, some of it is possibly true. But, since you weren't actually pointing to the specific problems, but, rather, just endlessly throwing out "what ifs", that was the problem.

Here we have a specific problem, complete with supporting evidence as to why it's a problem. Again, if we deal with the ACTUAL issues instead of inventing problems where none exist, maybe it's easier to move forward.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You mean, doing things like looking up words in a dictionary?

No

 

[Eltab]

It is a model based on how humans, overall, developed technology. And it serves as a handy descriptor (because if a given group is still using stone tools and not engaged in metallurgy, they are the level of the stone age in terms of technology). Granted you could have a culture that didn't advance to the copper age or iron age, but still develops other cultural advancements in a setting that make that kind descriptor not very useful. For instance, maybe they never develop metal tools but engineer some kind of advanced bureaucracy and social structure that makes the Medieval Europe analogues in the setting seem less advanced by comparison.

The Inca Empire and the Aztecs come to mind immediately.

The Native tribes of the future USA did not develop ironworking at all.

The Yanomamo villages (Brazil / Venezuela border) still did not do metalworking of their own in the 1980's; they traded for steel-bladed knives &c.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

You are also ignoring the fact that you were told...

Yup, that's pretty much what it was. I was being told.

That's why you were told to stop making exaggerated comments. Not that your comments were impossible, but, because you were just shooting in the dark.

Shooting in the dark? Making exaggerated comments about religion and how people might be offended? The thing you are vehemently arguing about in this thread? Too bad we couldn't have had a civil discussion about it in the last thread.

 

[Hussar]

Yes Exactly that. Shooting in the dark.

Religious people might be offended is so broad and vague that it’s pretty much guaranteed to turn out true.

People with shamanic traditions are having their culture appropriated is somewhat more specific and can be talked about.

 

[Mercurius]

This is another one. I am not Asian, nor have I ever trained in any real martial arts or eastern religious practices, but if I believe ki/chi is real and I have it and can learn to use it, nobody better try to tell me I am appropriating anything just because I was not born into that culture.

This comes across as very “I can wear a bindi if I want to!” style entitled.

Except its not. ki/chi (or prana) are Asian words used to refer to vital energy; no culture owns the vital energy--it is (to those who believe in or experience it) part of the human make-up.

 

[Mercurius]

I thought this quote from Michael Harner might help clarify the shaman and shamanism:

The word "shaman" in the original Tungus language refers to a person who makes journeys to nonordinary reality in an altered state of consciousness. Adopting the term in the West was useful because people didn't know what it meant. Terms like "wizard," "witch," "sorcerer," and "witch doctor" have their own connotations, ambiguities, and preconceptions associated with them. Although the term is from Siberia, the practice of shamanism existed on all inhabited continents.

After years of extensive research, Mircea Eliade, in his book, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, concluded that shamanism underlays all the other spiritual traditions on the planet, and that the most distinctive feature of shamanism—but by no means the only one—was the journey to other worlds in an altered state of consciousness.

"...in our culture many consider it avant-garde if a person talks about the mind-body connection, but the fact that the brain is connected to the rest of the body is not the most exciting news. It's been known for hundreds and thousands of years. What's really important about shamanism, in my opinion, is that the shaman knows that we are not alone. By that I mean, when one human being compassionately works to relieve the suffering of another, the helping spirits are interested and become involved."​

Shamans are often called "see-ers" (seers), or "people who know" in their tribal languages, because they are involved in a system of knowledge based on firsthand experience. Shamanism is not a belief system. It's based on personal experiments conducted to heal, to get information, or do other things. In fact, if shamans don't get results, they will no longer be used by people in their tribe. People ask me, "How do you know if somebody's a shaman?" I say, "It's simple. Do they journey to other worlds? And do they perform miracles?"

Harner goes on to say that shamanism is a "method, not a religion." Thus a shaman is a person who engages in shamanism, or shamanic practices.

I think the key here is that a shaman utilizes altered or trance states--whether through meditative practices or psychedelic substances. There is no ownership of this idea, despite it--like all words--having a specific etymological root. Just as any human being can theoretically harness ki/chi energy, so too can anyone practice shamanism. Altered states of consciousness are universal.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Religious people might be offended is so broad and vague that it’s pretty much guaranteed to turn out true.

People with shamanic traditions are having their culture appropriated is somewhat more specific and can be talked about.

You mean this vague conversation some of us had about shamans? Which is (also) relevant to this thread.

Spoiler: Conversation about Shamans in the other thread

You're right. Lizardfolk alignment in 5e is very peculiar imo and doesn't make much sense given their behaviour and the fact they are sentient. They almost seem to be permitted to escape the normal good/evil judgement. 5e Monster Manual:

Lizardfolk have no notion of traditional morality, and they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien. Truly neutral creatures, they kill when it is expedient and do whatever it takes to survive...

Any creature that enters their territory is fair game to be stalked, killed, and devoured. They make no distinction between humanoids, beasts, and monsters...

Lizard folk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.

I'd say they are definitely evil. They also of course fit a colonialist narrative of "primitive" races practicing cannibalism and human sacrifice. They have shamans, which are often associated with non-white people.

EDIT: The entry doesn't seem to understand that D&D alignment is supposed to be objective, not subjective. It doesn't matter if lizardfolk have "no notion of traditional morality".

With that portrayal (which feels more lizard than human) what is the downside to just reclassifying them as monstrous instead of humanoid, and not using the word shaman for their casters?

We do have to be careful not to diminish the concepts of tribal and shaman. We still have tribal societies in the real world, often with shamans being an important part of the cultural and religious practices.

I don't think it's a problem to have tribal societies in D&D, and I don't think it's a problem to have shamans. The problem lies when a specific race is locked in as a shamanistic, tribal group . . . also with descriptors like barbaric, savage, bestial, chaotic, etc.

In fact, I've long felt D&D needs a shaman class as one of the core classes alongside the cleric and druid. We got that in 4E, but that was a brief moment.

I don't think we need to give up on any of these themes. Well, I'd dump "advanced" vs "primal".

We should just avoid assigning these themes as defining characteristics of D&D's races. Orcs shouldn't always fall on the wilderness, primal, warlike, and expansionist ends of these spectra, especially all at once.

Definitely. I was thinking that if it was decided something was monstrous (instead of humanoid) then describing them with the language we use for real world groups of humans seemed problematic.

I didn't play 4e much, but liked the way PF presented Shaman's as a divine caster type that just had a different source of power (in this case nature spirits). In that context, it feels like the divine casters of various creature types should just be referred to by their power source. If the lizard folk caster gets their power from a god, they're just a cleric like any other.

Why do we need Cleric/Druid/Shaman anyways? Are these not just references to a culture's holy people?

Why not just 'Holy Person'?

Break them into subclasses, like Nature/Structured (or whatever, I'm at a loss for a good adjective) that include druids and clerics. Then you don't have the druid and the redundant nature cleric.

Why do we need the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock? And really, outside of metagame mumbo-jumbo, what's the real difference between an "arcane" caster and a "divine" caster?

Why have the fighter, paladin, barbarian, and ranger as separate classes? How different really is the rogue from the fighter? What the heck is a bard anyway?

Which character archetypes get full classes, or subclasses, or some other game construct (prestige class, kit, feat, etc) is subjective and there is no single right way to do it.

But considering the class list we have in D&D now, the concept of a shaman is different enough from that of a cleric or druid that it warrants it's own class. IMO, of course.

My point with the Shaman was, rather than add a new 'similar' class, why not just fold it into an existing one and make the existing ones a bit more flexible? I mean, it was just a suggestion. I'm not sure WotC is going to make any changes to the existing classes other than some descriptive wording. Holy Person is a lot more generic.

 

[Campbell]

When you use terms like primitive and advanced to describe cultures and societies to me it indicates buying into the flawed notion of social progress or cultural evolution. For the longest time we treated the development of societies on a scholarly level like a straight line as if the move from hunter gatherer to agrarian to feudalism to nation state were some sort of natural evolutionary process instead of just an accident of history. The idea is that indigenous or tribal societies are somehow lesser than societies where people build cities, plant flags, and keep standing armies - that centralized power structures are better than decentralized ones.

That's a notion that sociology is for the most part leaving behind. \

The indigenous cultures that are often referred to as primitive have knowledge and techniques that we lack. They have sophisticated social relationships, cultural touchstones, and systems of belief.

Here's the thing - we do not lose anything when we embrace the rich cultures of the indigenous. We can still feature indigenous antagonists as long as we do it with care. We do not have to be perfect, but we should always try to be better,

The following quotes come from Pathfinder Second Edition's rendition of the Lizardfolk. I think it maintains their place as a possible antagonist while hinting a deeper, sophisticated culture.

Lizardfolk

Known as iruxi in their native tongue, these primordial reptiles have held themselves apart from the mammalianmasses for eons, secure in their customs as self-sufficient hunters, naturalists, and warriors. But as younger civilizations have encroached ever deeper upon the lizardfolk’s ancestral lands, isolation has ceased to be an option for this pragmatic society. Now, for the first time in centuries, a younger generation of lizardfolk is venturing outward to trade, study, adventure, and do what their people do best: endure.

Society

Known among themselves as iruxi, lizardfolk are raised communally from the moment they break from their shells. They have an oral tradition stretching back thousands of years, brought to life through epic poems, evocative carvings, and ancestral rites performed among fields of fossilized bone. Lizardfolk are passionate astrologers with one eye on the future. If they seem slow to act, it is because their long history has taught them the value of patience.

The simple villages most outsiders associate with iruxi are the homes of migrants in outlying regions. True iruxi settlements are often overlooked, as they are partially or mostly submerged in water. These glass and stone complexes bear the mark of every generation of lizardfolk that lived within them, and lizardfolk bones often adorn the walls, as many lizardfolk believe these remains can be animated by ancestral spirits when the residents are in danger.

Lizardfolk Relations

Though most are neutral in alignment, the typical iruxi’s pride in their traditions, suspicion of others, and need to protect their kin can make them seem standoffish or even aggressive when encountered. However, most are eager to learn from visitors, trade stories and equipment, and forge alliances.